3 ms·

Chess opening trends are like fashion--some high profile player(s), always on the search for new ideas, finds a resource in an unpopular line and suddenly it's

by cven714 12y ago

Chess opening trends are like fashion--some high profile player(s), always on the search for new ideas, finds a resource in an unpopular line and suddenly it's all the rage. Everyone is playing it, working out the complications, finding ways to defend or neutralize the lines, then interest wanes until someone uncovers a fresh new plan somewhere else and the cycle repeats. Other times though, new resources aren't found and a line mostly dies out, like the Kings Gambit. So what I would be interested to see from your data set is a relation between opening performance and its popularity. Did people stop playing the Pirc due to sub-par results compared to other openings at the time (like I imagine happened with the Vienna) or did it simply fall out of fashion? It would be interesting to know which lines always had good results, but just stopped being popular for whatever reason. They could be due for a revival.

dfan 12y ago
Unfortunately, it isn't always obvious from the data which of your interpretations is correct. Take the following two fictional cases: Case 1: The Limburger Gambit was popular for a few decades, but then grandmasters started playing the Limburger Gambit Deferred instead, so it fell out of fashion, although it is still a perfectly good opening. Case 2: The Limburger Gambit was popular for a few decades, but then a response was found that refuted the whole line. It was played in one famous game, after which everybody abandoned it. As far as the data set is concerned, the difference between these two cases is a single game, so it's not going to show up in the stats.
- cven714 12y ago
  This is true, but I think there are many more case 2s where rather than an entire line being refuted in a single blow, gradually one side was able to find antidotes and the line stopped being a good practical choice. The Vienna is an example. So while it isn't always obvious, I'm hoping enough fall between your two Limburgers to be interesting.
  - dfan 12y ago
    The two biggest examples I can think of of "opening fell out of fashion but then was brought back at the highest levels" are Kasparov reviving the Scotch in the 1990s and Kramnik reviving the Berlin variation of the Ruy Lopez in his world title match with Kasparov in 2000.
rmrfrmrf 12y ago
With the advent of computer analysis, the serious chess player needs to have a basic understanding of almost every opening, with that understanding going deeper and deeper as you scale the ranking list. For example, the King's Gambit hasn't really fallen out of favor despite the lack of long grandmaster games. The Falkbeer Countergambit (1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5) in particular has seen a revival as of late with the Nimzowitsch variation (3.exd5 c6!?). You might not see Carlsen and Anand playing it in tournament (mostly due to the risk-reward factor of having to solve complex positions over the board under time pressure), but they've almost certainly studied it with their team of coaches and researchers. To comment on the Pirc: statistically, Black fares much worse with the Pirc in relationship to the most successful counter to 1.e4, the Sicilian defense (1...c5). From a gameplay perspective, Black has to commit much earlier with the Pirc than the Sicilian, since the Sicilian has about a billion variations starting as early as the second move.

by cven714 12y ago

dfan 12y ago

Unfortunately, it isn't always obvious from the data which of your interpretations is correct. Take the following two fictional cases: Case 1: The Limburger Gambit was popular for a few decades, but then grandmasters started playing the Limburger Gambit Deferred instead, so it fell out of fashion, although it is still a perfectly good opening. Case 2: The Limburger Gambit was popular for a few decades, but then a response was found that refuted the whole line. It was played in one famous game, after which everybody abandoned it. As far as the data set is concerned, the difference between these two cases is a single game, so it's not going to show up in the stats.

cven714 12y ago
This is true, but I think there are many more case 2s where rather than an entire line being refuted in a single blow, gradually one side was able to find antidotes and the line stopped being a good practical choice. The Vienna is an example. So while it isn't always obvious, I'm hoping enough fall between your two Limburgers to be interesting.
- dfan 12y ago
  The two biggest examples I can think of of "opening fell out of fashion but then was brought back at the highest levels" are Kasparov reviving the Scotch in the 1990s and Kramnik reviving the Berlin variation of the Ruy Lopez in his world title match with Kasparov in 2000.

rmrfrmrf 12y ago

With the advent of computer analysis, the serious chess player needs to have a basic understanding of almost every opening, with that understanding going deeper and deeper as you scale the ranking list. For example, the King's Gambit hasn't really fallen out of favor despite the lack of long grandmaster games. The Falkbeer Countergambit (1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5) in particular has seen a revival as of late with the Nimzowitsch variation (3.exd5 c6!?). You might not see Carlsen and Anand playing it in tournament (mostly due to the risk-reward factor of having to solve complex positions over the board under time pressure), but they've almost certainly studied it with their team of coaches and researchers. To comment on the Pirc: statistically, Black fares much worse with the Pirc in relationship to the most successful counter to 1.e4, the Sicilian defense (1...c5). From a gameplay perspective, Black has to commit much earlier with the Pirc than the Sicilian, since the Sicilian has about a billion variations starting as early as the second move.